Re: Changes to named
"Neal D. Becker" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.rhl.beta,gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.testers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 09:20 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 5, 2003, "Neal D. Becker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I see in release notes that the permissions/ownerships of named files > > have changed. Is it OK to install (clean), then restore my > > backed-up /var/lib/named and /etc/named.conf, or will I have to change > > ownerships/permissions? > > Err... Release Notes anyone? > > o The BIND nameserver has had its security tightened. The /var/named/ > directory is no longer owned by "named", but rather by "root". Slave > zone files should now be stored in the new /var/named/slaves/ > directory, which is owned by "named". In addition, a new bind-chroot > package makes it possible to run the named daemon in a chroot() > "jail" (located in /var/named/chroot/) for greater security. Thanks, but I already read the release notes. My question is, if I simply restore my old named setup, overwriting the new permissions/ownerships with the old ones, will named break? -- fedora-test-list mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list